[R6RS] SYNTAX-CASE

Thanks, Kent!
Two remarks:
- At some point, you agreed to make compound syntax objects opaque
rather than lists. From reading this proposal, I can't really say
what the representation is, but it should be spelled out somewhere.
Moreover, probably something like SYNTAX->LIST is needed.
- You probably should note somewhere in the actual proposal that, for
SYNTAX-RULES, you want to drop the R5RS requirement that "The
<pattern> in a <syntax rule> [...] begins with the keyword for the
macro." (beginning of Sec. 4.3.2) (Which is being violated by
everyone and his brother anyway.)
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla